Where Guns Are Outlawed, School Attackers Use Cars and Knives

by Michael TennantIn the days since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, many in the media and government have asserted that the only way to prevent such attacks in the future is to prohibit persons from being able to purchase guns. So what are we to make of the fact that on Christmas Eve a man attacked a group of students at a middle school in China, injuring 13 -- and that his attack is just the latest in a string of attacks on Chinese schools, some of which have resulted in deaths?

If guns are the cause of such crimes, as American statists would have it, how could that have happened? As the Associated Press observes, the Chinese government has followed the statists' prescription to a T: "China largely prohibits private ownership of guns." How, then, were the attackers able to perpetrate their crimes?

Answer: They simply selected weapons that are not prohibited and that would not, under normal circumstances, even be thought of as weapons. The man who attacked the school on December 24 ran the students down with his car and then tried unsuccessfully to set it on fire, which would most likely have injured or killed many others, since the car was loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers. Previous attackers have mostly used knives: a December 14 kitchen-knife stabbing spree in an elementary school wounded 23 students.

It appears, then, that Beijing will now have to ban cars and knives.

"But," the gun grabbers will argue, "cars and knives are qualitatively different from guns. They have constructive uses: transporting people, slicing food, and so on. They aren't used for evil purposes unless people choose to use them that way."
Of course, the same goes for guns. Guns can be used to hunt wild game for food and clothing. They can be used to stop crimes; one study found that Americans use guns to prevent crimes 2.5 million times a year. And they can be used to protect people from tyrannical governments, which is why authoritarian regimes from the Nazis to the Chinese communists have invariably prohibited ownership of personal firearms.

On the other hand, as we see on the news every day, guns can also be used to commit crimes, to wage wars, and to oppress people.

The deciding factor in whether a gun, a car, or a knife will be used for a good purpose or for an evil purpose is the person operating it. A person with good intentions will (barring accidents) use the object constructively; a person with evil intentions will use it destructively.

Moreover, a person with evil intentions can almost always find some way to carry them out. If, as in China, guns are banned, he will use a car or a knife. If Beijing were to ban cars and knives, an evildoer might turn to arrows, explosives, or poisons to do his dirty work. Even if governments the world over were to ban every object that could conceivably be used as a weapon and force everyone to walk around naked, there would still be crimes, including murder. Strangling, after all, requires only bare hands.

If it can't prevent crimes by banning weapons, what, then, can government do?

First, it can remove itself from as many aspects of society as possible. For instance, government-run schools are prime targets for would-be mass murderers, offering a large number of potential victims in a relatively small, unprotected space. Without public schools, there would be many more, smaller private schools with varying levels of security.

Without such schools, too, there would be less pressure to give students who don't "fit the mold" psychotropic drugs that may well contribute to their later killing sprees. "Researchers," Barbara Shoff wrote at PolicyMic.com, "have discovered a definite link in almost every case [of mass shootings:] the use of pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by the assailant's doctor." Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, was "on medication" to control his outré behaviors, according to the Washington Post.

Second, government can stop making it difficult, if not impossible, for people to defend themselves. Declaring schools "gun-free zones" is an open invitation for shooters to descend upon them. Forcing people to obtain the government's permission to buy and carry firearms makes them less likely to go to the trouble of arming themselves, in turn making them more likely to be victimized by criminals, who will either ignore the law and obtain guns anyway or use some other weapon.

Finally, government can quit pretending that every evil in the world can be prevented by passing laws. Politicians like to grandstand after tragedies by calling for new restrictions on individual freedom, making a show of their alleged compassion for the victims and their families. In fact, much evil in the world is simply the result of human nature and cannot be prevented no matter how hard the state tries; indeed, the bigger the government becomes, the more evil it creates.

If future school attacks are to be averted, the first step, then, is to scale back the state. Doing so will allow civil society, including families, churches, charities, and community groups, to flourish. And by offering real compassion to society's outsiders, not the politician's photo-op kind, those institutions may well be able to help many outsiders cope with life instead of destroying it.
_
Michael Tennant is a software developer and freelance writer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dozens of children have been stabbed to death in China. Regardless, if people want to kill people, they'll find a way to do it. Preventing people from defending themselves from said crazy people is the real crime, and mind you, to deny someone a gun involves gun violence, as every arbitrary edict from politicos must be enforced through violence and threats of violence.

Totally right 85167, and if you SEE the video they have of it, and compare it to the same guy if he had real weapons, the kind used recently, or any of that, and think of the difference, you'd have to be brain dead to think it is equivalent.
Seriously, one can make SOME arguments against bans, etc, but this one is particularly stupid, specious, and irrelevant...basically it is a lie. You have to be an ARMS distance away or less (or be an expert at throwing and have many...something much harder than pulling a trigger) to harm someone with a knife. Guns have reach, and ones that fire many rounds quickly...you don't even have to be a great shot in a crowd.
Gun nuts...are nuts.

Totally disagree. I don't own a gun and haven't shot one since high school, but I feel safer with a gun owning public. Safer from criminals and safer from the gov't.

I've lived in 6 states, and in my experience the locals I've lived in that had the most gun owners had the lowest crime and gun violence, while those with fewest gun owners had more gun crime. Chicago's gun laws and subsequent increase in gun violence supports this idea.

As for mass killings, all a person would need is a chain, a lock, a lighter, and a few cans of gasoline and while theaters, gyms, or schools could be slaughtered. As mentioned above, cars can kill in terrible ways too. Or what about hammers? There was an article I read last week siting FBI statistics that more people are killed by hammers & clubs in the US than by rifles (and by a pretty wide margin), so apparently they are pretty lethal too.

Point of the article is people kill people; guns, knives, cars, hammers, or gasoline are just various mean they utilize.

Also note that before the Newtown attack the worst K-12 shooting sprees had occurred in the UK & in Germany, both who have much stricter gun policies that we do...so gun laws don't stop these terrible attacks.

Ban cars, knives, teeth, nails and hands altogether! They are dangerous weapons and we'll crawl around naked, toothless and handcuffed for the safety of all and for the greater glory of Mr. Smiling Gun Grabber!!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.